Talk:Cinema of the United States

Archives(Index)

2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived byClueBot III.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress onTalk:Hollywoodwhich affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

First studio

What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a threadTalk:Hollywood, Los Angeles#First studioabout this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated.Invasive Spices(talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema

New version:

Thecinema of the United States,mainly comprised ofmajor film studios(also known asHollywood) along with someindependent film,has had a large effect on theglobal film industrysince the early 20th century.

If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fullysynonymouswith American cinema.

I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would beshockingnews to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves aspartof Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.

No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's theRickey Hendersonofilleisticself-regard.

Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. —MaxEnt20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change?Erik(talk|contrib)^{(ping me)}21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Could also get other opinions by posting atWT:FILMsince this is a core topic.Erik(talk|contrib)^{(ping me)}21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, hereJohn Cassavetes,apparently writing inFilm Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959,nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices (src):

Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.

...

However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.

In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.

About John:

First known as a television and film actor,Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema,writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.

I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up byTim Wuin his bookThe Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. —MaxEnt21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

My final input,fivesixseven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:

• Bottle Rocket— 1996;Wes Anderson
• Cigarettes & Coffee— 1993;Paul Thomas Anderson
• Slacker (film)— 1990;Richard Linklater
• Gates of Heaven— 1980;Errol Morris;belated documentary addition
• Dark Star (film)— 1974;John Carpenter
• Fritz the Cat (film)— 1972;Ralph Bakshi;belated animation addition
• THX 1138— 1971;George Lucas

Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. —MaxEnt22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section

(Note: I'll try to use US english here)

There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged byUser:103.156.42.195. The source in question is this:https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood

TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here.Mako001(C)(T)🇺🇦07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Train Robbery image caption

The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Wikipedia article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this).136.159.160.121(talk)16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recent reversion

Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay'sLeo (2023 Indian film).I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Wikipedia article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires.174.81.23.127(talk)07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you.174.81.23.127(talk)17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:

If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Wikipedia.

Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.24.249.59.28(talk)17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)